Commercial Litigation and Arbitration

Unsolicited Email Received from Someone Whom the Recipient Has Never Been in Contact with Not Sufficiently Authenticated (Linked to Sender) Simply by Recipient’s Testimony

From Jimena v. UBS AG Bank, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68560 (E.D. Cal. June 24, 2011):

"When a letter, signed with the purported signature of X, is received 'out of the blue,' with no previous correspondence, the traditional 'show me' skepticism of the common law prevails, and the purported signature is not sufficient as authentication, unless authenticity is confirmed by additional facts." 2 Kenneth S. Broun, McCormick On Evidence § 224 (6th ed. 2006). The same rule applies to self-identification by a speaker in an unsolicited telephone call. Fed. R. Evid. 901 Adv. Comm. Note (b), Ex. 6 ("The cases are in agreement that a mere assertion of his identity by a person talking on the telephone is not sufficient evidence of the authenticity of the conversation and that additional evidence of his identity is required."); United States v. Puerta Restrepo, 814 F.2d 1236, 1239 (7th Cir. 1987); United States v. Pool, 660 F.2d 547, 560 (5th Cir. 1981). Likewise, "[w]hen the recipient of an e-mail attempts to prove that the message was authored by a particular individual whose name appears in the header, such self-identification by designated sender is insufficient to establish authorship." Paul R. Rice, Electronic Evidence: Law & Evidence 348 (2d ed. 2008). Self-identification in an unsolicited e-mail supports authenticity, but is not, by itself, considered sufficient. Id.

Share this article:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Email

Recent Posts

RICO and Injunctions: (1) State Court Actions Designed to Perpetuate and Monetize a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable under RICO, Even Though They Are Not Themselves Alleged to Be Predicate Acts [Note: Noerr Pennington Applies in RICO Actions] — (2) Although Civil RICO’s Text and Legislative History Fail to Reveal Any Intent to Override the Provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act, Arbitrations Are Enjoinable Under the “Effective Vindication” Doctrine Where They Operate As a Prospective Waiver of a Party’s Right to Pursue Statutory RICO Remedies — (3) Arbitration Findings May Be Given Collateral Estoppel Effect in a Civil RICO Action — (4) Injunction of Non-Corrupt State Court Litigations That Furthers a RICO Violation Are Enjoinable Under the Anti-Injunction Act’s “Expressly Authorized” Exception — (5) “The Irreparable Harm Requirement Is The Single Most Important Prerequisite For The Issuance Of A Preliminary Injunction” (Good Quote) — (6) When Injunction Is Based on “Serious Questions on the Merits” Rather Than “Likelihood of Success,” Court May Rely on Unverified Pleadings and Attached Exhibits to Assess the Merits, Unless the Opponent Has Raised Substantial Questions (Here, the Opponent Failed to Request an Evidentiary Hearing) — (7) Whether Amended Pleading Moots An Appeal Turns on Whether It Materially Changes the Substantive Basis for the Appeal — (8) Meaning of “In That” (“Used To Introduce A Statement That Explains Or Gives More Specific Information” About A Prior Statement)

Archives